Night Sky Views from the Edge of a Distant Galaxy | Manuel's Perspective

  • Thread starter Thread starter marrsal
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Galaxy Sky
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the hypothetical night sky views from a planet located at the edge of a distant galaxy, exploring what celestial objects would be visible when looking away from the galaxy's center. Participants clarify that, without a telescope, the naked eye would see nothing, while telescopes would reveal a sky filled with faint galaxies, similar to the Hubble Deep Field observations. The conversation also addresses misconceptions about the universe's center and edge, emphasizing that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, with no defined center or edge. Theoretical frameworks, such as the balloon analogy for the expanding universe, are debated to illustrate these concepts.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic astronomy concepts, including galaxies and their distribution.
  • Familiarity with observational tools like telescopes and their capabilities.
  • Knowledge of the Big Bang theory and its implications for the universe's structure.
  • Comprehension of the balloon analogy as a model for understanding cosmic expansion.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the Hubble Deep Field and its significance in understanding galaxy distribution.
  • Explore the implications of the Big Bang theory on the universe's structure and expansion.
  • Learn about different types of telescopes and their observational capabilities, including radio telescopes.
  • Investigate the concept of homogeneity and isotropy in cosmology and its observational evidence.
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, astrophysicists, and science enthusiasts interested in cosmic structures, the nature of the universe, and observational astronomy techniques.

  • #31
DaveC426913 said:
You've used a good analogy but come to the exact wrong conclusion.
Question: what common sense (i.e previous experiences) do you have about universes that you have any common sense about how they "should" work?...

Common sense has no place in trying to discover the unknown. Throw away your preconceptions and examine the facts. Let the universe tell you how it is built, not the other way around.


Nice to know that this is warming up. Why would you like to hear an answer based on "common sense"?. If you are interested on it, then, that means that to you, common sense may actually have a place to discover the unknown. Being a neurophysiologist I do work everyday with "facts" that our current technology has to give us these days. And sometimes, those "facts" are actually not real facts. Those facts is what the machine is telling us what it reads, but not actually what is happening. We tell the machine to give us the information we want, or we think we need. But, not uncommonly, we can not base our desitions on what we get as a "fact". Unfortunately, I have chosen a path totally separated from what physicists or mathematicians do. Therefore I can not examine their "facts". But I am sure, that among them, there are a lot of gaps where those facts are actually not facts. So, I can not really examine the facts as I wish I could, therefore I am just limited on using what I call "common sense".
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
marrsal said:
Nice to know that this is warming up. Why would you like to hear an answer based on "common sense"?. If you are interested on it, then, that means that to you, common sense may actually have a place to discover the unknown. Being a neurophysiologist I do work everyday with "facts" that our current technology has to give us these days. And sometimes, those "facts" are actually not real facts. Those facts is what the machine is telling us what it reads, but not actually what is happening. We tell the machine to give us the information we want, or we think we need. But, not uncommonly, we can not base our desitions on what we get as a "fact". Unfortunately, I have chosen a path totally separated from what physicists or mathematicians do. Therefore I can not examine their "facts". But I am sure, that among them, there are a lot of gaps where those facts are actually not facts. So, I can not really examine the facts as I wish I could, therefore I am just limited on using what I call "common sense".
I agree 100%. In neurophysiology, cold, hard facts are a fair bit harder to come by than in physics.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
933
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K